Parishioners of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto have been told they should consider going to confession if they voted for Barack Obama, because of the president-elect's position condoning abortion.

"If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the grav- ity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously," the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21.

The letter was sent to more than 15,000 members of the St. Joseph's parish. It is one of 34 parishes in the Stockton Diocese, which has more than 200,000 members in Stanislaus, San Joaquin and four other counties.

Coincidentally, it just so happens that voting and confessing both take place in a booth and are supposed to be private.

The Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton Diocese, disagrees with Illo. He said Catholics should not feel compelled to disclose how they voted to their priest.

Quite right. At least he appreciates the privacy of a vote.

Quote:

"In Catholic teaching, you have to go to confession when you have committed a mortal sin," he said. "Now, what is a mortal sin? It's somewhat complex. No one can say, 'You committed a mortal sin.' I can only say, 'It's a grave matter.' It's my job to look after my parishioners.

This is almost incredible (at least for someone from North America who is not from the US)...I can't imagine even a priest saying something like that here.

I would have hoped that things would have evolved a little better since the middle ages (and way before too) and that people would have become more reasonable...but it seems hopeless sometimes...never been a fan of those who use religion for whatever crazy purpose

True, but the hard thing is determining who gets to be 'leader'. Group mentalities seem to be everywhere, it's that fundamentally divisional 'us vs them' idea that ends up making most of the non-conformists fall in line. Like how these Catholics who voted for Obama, religious pressure is employed. I would guess that a lot of them wouldn't vote for someone like Obama again, due to how they've been told it was 'a mortal sin'.

Some leaders don't intend to dictate, but do dictate things because its what their personal beliefs tell them to do, and also because it seems like the right thing to do...

I'm simply arguing that there is a fundamental difference between someone that aspires to a position of influence to inspire/lead and someone that does so to brow-beat into submission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcesious

I would guess that a lot of them wouldn't vote for someone like Obama again, due to how they've been told it was 'a mortal sin'.

Some of them might not. Others might choose to see things how they are and exercise other options as PastramiX did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcesious

Some leaders don't intend to dictate, but do dictate things because its what their personal beliefs tell them to do, and also because it seems like the right thing to do...

Meh...I would argue that true leaders aren't authoritarian ( 1) because they don't need to be and 2) because leadership doesn't require compliance). I do agree that sometimes people in positions of authority do have to make tough decisions that are sometimes unpopular. The difference is in how it is done.

In this instance though, someone in a position of authority is using fear to further their agenda. Sad.

I suspect if you were in his position and thought of abortion as he does, you'd be writing some letters yourself. In any case, the Catholics have been quite clear on their position for a very long time. Although the priest probably should have worded it differently (his bishop does better on that count), I don't see how this could surprise anyone.

The problem with his argument is that he's applying it to one specific issue (abortion). You are correct that he is being completely consistent within the context of the issue. However he is not being consistent at all within the context of the larger argument he is using to defend his stance on the issue.

For example, could this same letter have been written to those that voted for the Pro-War candidate, John McCain? I would argue that it could have. So is he advocating that his parishioners options were either vote for McCain or not vote at all? If so, then he is seriously out of bounds (monkeying with the separation between church and state), not to mention a hypocrite.

Whether I should be surprised by his stance or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not his actions were appropriate.

I suspect if you were in his position and thought of abortion as he does, you'd be writing some letters yourself. In any case, the Catholics have been quite clear on their position for a very long time. Although the priest probably should have worded it differently (his bishop does better on that count), I don't see how this could surprise anyone.

Yes, Samuel, I could see how this isn't surprising. However, on the other hand, he's really not being practical. He also isn't logically correct, nor is he appropriate in dictating to his congregation that they're sinners for voting for Obama.

The problem with his argument is that he's applying it to one specific issue (abortion). You are correct that he is being completely consistent within the context of the issue. However he is not being consistent at all within the context of the larger argument he is using to defend his stance on the issue.

For example, could this same letter have been written to those that voted for the Pro-War candidate, John McCain? I would argue that it could have. So is he advocating that his parishioners options were either vote for McCain or not vote at all? If so, then he is seriously out of bounds (monkeying with the separation between church and state), not to mention a hypocrite.

Sure, I can agree with that. I've thought along similar lines when this has come up in previous elections.

Quote:

Whether I should be surprised by his stance or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not his actions were appropriate.

And I think it's pretty clear they were not. The priest even blatantly violated his church's own guidelines concerning involvement in the election - namely, he specifically mentioned Obama in the letter. The point of my original post was merely to say that 1) It's unsurprising that something like this would happen, and 2) his position is not particularly extraordinary as Catholics go, as it is has been church doctrine for quite a long time, even before Humanae Vitae was written (this in response to the seemingly amazed comments in this thread that someone could say such a thing).

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Yes, Samuel, I could see how this isn't surprising. However, on the other hand, he's really not being practical. He also isn't logically correct, nor is he appropriate in dictating to his congregation that they're sinners for voting for Obama.

Are you defending him?

No, I don't have any interest in defending him. I've already agreed he was in the wrong to write what he did, and arguing articles of faith is not something I'm very good at.

The point of my original post was merely to say that 1) It's unsurprising that something like this would happen, and 2) his position is not particularly extraordinary as Catholics go, as it is has been church doctrine for quite a long time, even before Humanae Vitae was written (this in response to the seemingly amazed comments in this thread that someone could say such a thing).

Fair enough. I had hoped that's where you were going with this

I'm not surprised that this happened, but disappointed nonetheless. I felt it deserved whatever attention I could drum up for it.